Rippey v Hunt - [2014] NZHC 1694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-419-752 [2014] NZHC 1694

UNDER the Family Protection Act 1955

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal against a decision of the
Family Court at Hamilton

BETWEEN

PAUL PIAHANA RIPPEY

Appellant

AND

PAMELA ANITA HUNT,

VALERIE ELAINE MAISEY AND VIRGINIA ANNE HETA

Respondents

Hearing: 7 April 2014

Counsel:

A M Cook for Appellant
R H K Jerram for Respondents

Judgment:

18 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 July 2014 at 4:30 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: O’Sheas Solicitors, Hamilton
Anglesea Chambers, Hamilton

RIPPEY v HUNT [2014] NZHC 1694 [18 July 2014]

Introduction

[1] Anita Piahana Rippey was born in 1932. She married Kenneth Rippey in

1952. For the next 56 years, until Mrs Rippey’s death in 2008, the couple lived and worked together on the family farm. One block of the farm was solely owned by Mrs Rippey, having been given to her by her father. The larger block was jointly owned by the couple, who progressively bought out other landowners over the years. They raised their five children1 in the farm homestead, as well as caring for numerous foster children and other family members over the years.

[2] Mrs Rippey left her residuary estate, which primarily consisted of her interest in the family farm, to four of the five children of her marriage, in equal shares. The couple’s fifth child, Paul Rippey, was expressly excluded from his mother’s will, on the basis that “he has been supported by me for a period of not less than nine years prior to execution of this my will and will continue to receive these benefits at his option in the foreseeable future”.

[3] Mr Rippey challenged his mother’s will, pursuant to the Family Protection Act 1955 (“Act”). He claimed that his mother had breached her moral duty to him by not making provision for him in her will. He sought an equal share of his mother’s estate.

[4] Mr Rippey’s claim was unsuccessful in the Family Court. Judge R H Riddell concluded that Mrs Rippey’s moral duty to her son had been discharged during her lifetime, via gifts and other benefits and support that he had received from both his parents. In particular, the Judge found that Mr Rippey had been given $225,000 by his father in about 2002, of which $90,000 had been spent for the benefit of his parents and siblings. The remaining $135,000 had been used for his own purposes.

[5] In addition, Mr Rippey had received substantial benefits from living on his parents’ farm for 31 years, including free rent (which the Judge assessed as being

1 In addition Mrs Rippey had an older daughter who was raised by Mrs Rippey’s parents. She is
not a beneficiary under Mrs Rippey’s will.

worth $122,200, calculated at a “reasonably minimal rate”). He had also received intermittent payments from lessees of the farm (usually $500), free insurance, rates, water,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rippey v Hunt

Details

AGLC: Rippey v Hunt [2014] NZHC 1694
Case: [2014] NZHC 1694
Decision Date: 18 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Paul Rippey against a decision of the Family Court dismissing his claim under the Family Protection Act 1955. The appeal was heard by Katz J. The appeal was dismissed. Paul Rippey's mother, Anita Rippey, had excluded him from her will on the basis that he had been supported by her for a period of not less than nine years prior to execution of the will and would continue to receive those benefits in the foreseeable future. The appeal was based on the grounds that the Family Court had erred in concluding that Paul had not been financially supported by his parents, that the court had not properly taken into account the work he had undertaken on the family farm and in caring for his parents, and that the court had erred in taking into account the effect that making a financial provision for him would have on the ownership of the family farm. Katz J found that there was no error in the Family Court's decision. Katz J found that although Paul had somewhat exaggerated the work he had undertaken on the farm, he had undertaken some work and provided some support to his parents. The court also found that, taking into account all relevant factors, Anita had discharged her moral duty to her son by providing him with various forms of support during her lifetime. The court further found that Paul's involvement in an illegal cannabis operation was sufficiently egregious to disentitle him from any share in his mother's estate.

Orders